Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley
Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.
The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.
"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.
To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.
Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.
Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.
"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.
The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches.
According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.
Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.
Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.
Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.
"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.
Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."
"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.
When I went aboard a WWII type APA (Troop Transport) in 1957 the Junior enlisteds were basically housed in a one time hold with the racks 6 high and a pole between the next set of six, all 12 lashed to the same poles. It was not entirely uncommon for someone to get roaming hands and I am sure some may have scored but the majority managed to earn themselves a ‘blanket party’ and end up falling UP ladders to the head.
Needless to say this wasn’t an everyday problem as the results were harsh if one picked the wrong lap.
And this is when the ‘do funnies’ were BOTH put in the brig for their actions and yet it didn’t hardly slow some of them down.
But at the time, the Commands would quickly transfer most recipients of ‘blanket parties’ as they were usually reserved for thieves, molesters and scrounges, none of which is good for the morale of the masses....
I guess you're not in the military. Base Gyms have group showers. Basic Training and Tech Training dorms still tend to have group showers. Most large joint training areas (i.e., Grafenwoer AIN, Germany) also have group showers. So do many deployment zones. Actually; in some deployment zones your "shower" is a handful of baby wipes. Don't equate the military environment with any part of the civilian world. It doesn't work.
Also, I fail to see how your showering with lesbians is relevant to the thread. Does it mean you "have a dog in this fight?" If you are familiar with what goes on in a prison-shower environment, why would you want to recreate it in a military environment? Do you hate us?
The fact is; our society is being bled to death in increments. The behavior by gay men in public parks and truck stops would have gotten them killed about fifty years ago. Large groups of gay men have group sex in parks, on beaches and truck stops in plain view of families with children. Due to our PC environment, the police are often afraid to confront them. Do we need to open another venue for them to perform in?
I should also point out, I don't "hate" homosexuals. I have my own sins and failings I must deal with. I thank God that homosexuality isn't one of them! As another pointed out, homosexuality is similar to adultery and pedophilia as it is selfish and self destructive behavior. Have you heard of any "normal" person trying to get infected with AIDS? Google "Bug Chaser" and "Gift Giver."
By the way; the doctor who lobbied to have homosexuality removed from the manual for mental illness diagnosis (back in 1972) decided he was wrong. Around 2000 he announced that homosexuality is a mental illness. However; he never got much press. Our media is full of "homo-normative" bias, just like academia.
purpleraine post 97 - PS: the reason that every article contains criminal behavior is the owner forbids articles supporting the rights of and positive stories about homosexuals.
If you are questioning FR's honesty you can always post at DU or KOS. Waving the "intolerance" flag doesn't work well here.
Second idiotic rules should be eliminated.
You're the one who has some squaring to do.
I guess the handi-wipe issue negates the argument against homosexuals in the shower in the first place.
It does equate if you're thinking logically. There are barracks and many places where folks shower indoors and together. Not everyone is in the war zone or in training.
Your incremental argument cause me to tear up. One at a time of course. I hope you can put your finger in the dike and stop the flow. Or vis a versa.
Homosexuality is not analogous to adultery and pedophilia. If you can't figure out why, then I'm arguing with someone who'll never get it anyway.
I question your logic. I cited the FR policy accurately and described how a typical thread goes. I know from experience. By husband’s first cancelled thread was a defense of homosexuality on the basis of individual rights and pursuit of happenness and the blind zealotry of the posters. If you can’t stand some factual comment about FR policy and opinion then stop whining to everybody else.
I cited the policy, you’re the one who called it intolerance. Report yourself.
How are you going to square that with the vast majority of heterosexuals?
Do they have cameras and mics in all the on-base housing?
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.
We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
There lies your factual comment. The homosexual agenda has no place here. You will find no praise of homosexuals here. If you disagree, take it up with the founder/owner of the forum, of which you are here at HIS suffrance, and not your convenience.
When you and your rat pack stop trying to get me suspended perhaps you'll read the thread.
You need to read more closely. I didn't praise anyone. No one questioned the owners rights or his sufferance.
In fact, the only sufferance is to have some know-it-all come along and mischaracterize what's going on as if you've discovered who Jack the Ripper really is.
Sidebar Moderator?
Cop out.
You know the stats.
Heterosexual transmission of hiv (and other blood borne pathogens) is (1) very unlikely, and (2) like you say, the result of common behavior and not uncommon/unnatural.
Right.
purpleraine post 97 - PS: the reason that every article contains criminal behavior is the owner forbids articles supporting the rights of and positive stories about homosexuals.
Polygamists are also banned from military service. I was involved in the discharge of a young man who tried that. Those who practice bestiality are also banned.
Should either group serve?
Here's the deal. You can't hold a discussion or disagree without calling a posse and the bosses for help. So you can talk to them or whoever you want. In fact let's ban all disagreement on all homosexual issues and threads. Then you can have your own pity party about how awful the military is with homosexuals servibng for the last 200 and some years.
I don't care for your strong-armed tactics and whining when someone bests you in the discourse.
It must be so hard for you to tolerate the “blind zeolotry of the posters.”
If you don’t like the way the owner of the site does things, you’re free to go.
Another day, another “study.”
This is a nonsensical argument. Are you saying we're just a few vaccines away from you being okay with homosexuality in the military? I don't believe that for a minute.
Gays exist in the military now, and they'll exist in basically the same numbers if 'don't ask don't tell' goes away. There just aren't that many gays, per capita, that this number is going to vary greatly. Nor do I think that there's some vast number of gays lurking outside of recruiting stations, waiting for the day the Army comes around. Or that a vast number of straight soldiers that will turn gay once the Army gives the proverbial thumbs up. So your medical point is basically moot. In the closet or out, the numbers won't change, and the threat won't vary.
The real issue is that homosexuality is unnatural and innately rejected by normally functioning people. If you open the military to it, and force them to espouse it's value, you're going to drive out traditional minded folks who might be okay with turning a blind eye, but don't want to have to promote homosexuality as a function of their jobs.
Why don't we just stick to that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.